Texas

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30163
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Texas

#21 Post by flight50 » 14 Jun 2017 00:40

I think everyone would love Texas just because of its size and what all it brings to the table. From El Paso to Texarkana and from the Panhandle to like Brownsville will easily take 1.5-2 hrs ATS time to cross. Unfortunately Texas should give way to all the Western and Mountain states first. Only because of how long it will take to do Texas. SCS time wise would probably take 2-3 years. They need to square off the map first and to do this, fill in all the states West of Texas. With all the states pigbrother mentioned, minus Texas of course, I think that would give many of us plenty to be joyous over. That would basically be half of the U.S. While SCS works on more states after the first half, there shouldn't be much to complain about I'd think. But we are human so there will always be complaints, lol. After Texas, the map expansion could speed up. For one, the states get smaller but some cities get a little denser in several states, so it could balance out as if they were large states as well. Two, SCS will have grown in size after the first half of the states is complete. Numbers could be anywhere from 100-150+ employees by then. None of us know the future plans of SCS or this game but it sure is fun speculating, lol. I spend more time on this site than I do playing ATS. I will get back to playing ATS eventually but its no rush for me til NM hits.
Last edited by flight50 on 27 Jun 2017 04:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sora
Posts: 2183
Joined: 22 Feb 2017 18:47

Re: Texas

#22 Post by Sora » 14 Jun 2017 02:42

One other thing is that most of the remaining non-Texas states in the western US really flow into each other. Like, if you add Oregon, you really need to add Idaho, too. And if you want to add Idaho, then you need Utah even more than we do right now. But if you're adding Idaho, then you also really want to add either Washington or Montana to avoid single-corridor issues in the state's upper regions -- and once you've done that, you also probably want the other one, too, for the key connections they'd add. And since Montana extends so far eastward, you pretty much need Colorado and Wyoming to connect them to New Mexico.

Really Idaho in general is the big problem.
  • As Utah is not in the base game, Idaho has exactly one non-DLC route into it -- and it's through Jackpot, the distant corner of nowhere.
  • Oregon becomes less viable of an addition specifically because Idaho exists. Without Idaho, there is no interstate route through east Oregon, and the only non-California route (is anyone else here getting a little fatigued with I-5 yet) isn't exactly in a stellar location. This also affects Washington.
  • If Idaho is added, the Idaho Panhandle likely becomes a single-corridor route to whatever city forms its northern limit. This generally goes against both good game design and SCS's generally-desired approach to map creation.
  • Consequently, either Montana or Washington becomes necessary just so northern Idaho can provide a smooth gameplay experience. Washington, as a corner state, is not technically necessary for any other purpose -- while Montana creates an enormous hole in the map unless both Wyoming and Colorado are present.
I have no idea how to actually resolve the issues Idaho presents, because it's pretty much perfectly bad from a California-based game design perspective.

But in any case, and relevant to the topic I guess, Texas has the advantage of it being very independent from most of the states surrounding it. You need New Mexico to connect it to the map, but that's really about it because it can handle the rest. Oklahoma would be nice, but you can bypass it just fine with US-287 and US-87 for anything you might need it for (i.e. Wichita Falls and Colorado). But otherwise you'd go through New Mexico to reach anywhere in the current map anyway, and since virtually all of Texas is south of I-40, it can access the other four states pretty easily. And you barely even need to do that, because Texas is huge on its own and you can make decent routes without even necessarily needing other states.
User avatar
RTobi
Posts: 293
Joined: 17 Jul 2016 15:18
Contact:

Re: Texas

#23 Post by RTobi » 26 Jun 2017 16:01

pigbrother wrote: 08 Jun 2017 06:44 I think most of us would like a squared map, I saw a poll around here a few months ago and the option for a square map (which means Utah and Colorado next) was the favourite. What SCS will do... who knows. :)
viewtopic.php?f=178&t=227005 There you go :)
User avatar
TexasWhirlwind
Posts: 1582
Joined: 22 Mar 2016 16:11
Location: The United State of TEXAS
Contact:

Re: Texas

#24 Post by TexasWhirlwind » 26 Jun 2017 17:38

I will be happy with what ever SCS gives us..I'm in Texas myself, but I'm not real choosy about the releases that come our way.....
-.- -.-. ..... -- ...- ...-
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3303
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Texas

#25 Post by angrybirdseller » 27 Jun 2017 07:21

One thing Texas will provide is motherlode of recyclable assets for future map DLC.
kitt94
Posts: 33
Joined: 28 Jun 2017 11:46

Re: Texas

#26 Post by kitt94 » 28 Jun 2017 18:23

flight50 wrote: 14 Jun 2017 00:40 From El Paso to Texarkana
Hope I will meet the day when I will be able to sing "the boys are thirsty in Atlanta, and there's beer in Texarcana" while actually delivering this cargo with Smokey on my tail in ATS.
I am completely new to this game, but love it since first engine fire up.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FierbetoN, KaLypso, majessky and 12 guests